All Discussions Tagged 'cross' - Think Atheist2016-12-09T15:31:54Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=cross&feed=yes&xn_auth=noMan files $3 million suit against church for crushing him with the gaint crucifix he says cured wife's cancertag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-11-05:1982180:Topic:12048402012-11-05T22:11:37.062ZGallup's Mirrorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GallupsMirror
<p>Apparently, among the devout, God gets credit for curing cancer but none for <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/york-man-crushed-giant-crucifix-leg-amputated-191700439.html" target="_blank">pulverizing a leg</a>, despite using the same holy instrument to achieve both. That's surprising, since I'm sure there is scant evidence to support the role the crucifix played in the cancer-curing, in contrast with the rather stark role it played in the leg-crushing.</p>
<p>I'm wondering how…</p>
<p>Apparently, among the devout, God gets credit for curing cancer but none for <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/york-man-crushed-giant-crucifix-leg-amputated-191700439.html" target="_blank">pulverizing a leg</a>, despite using the same holy instrument to achieve both. That's surprising, since I'm sure there is scant evidence to support the role the crucifix played in the cancer-curing, in contrast with the rather stark role it played in the leg-crushing.</p>
<p>I'm wondering how all of this works. Is his good-guy leg up there in heaven, waiting for the rest of him to come up later? What happens if the rest of him ends up going to hell for suing God's own church? (Or would that kind of retaliation be too petty even for God?) Would God just toss the leg down to hell after him, or keep it up there, since it was lopped off pre-lawsuit?</p>
<p></p> Jesus Died on a Cross, or a Tree?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-06-07:1982180:Topic:2900902010-06-07T17:34:53.710ZGaytorhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
Years ago when I was diving into learning about Christianity I spent a couple of thousand hours marking up the Bible with notes, Post-It's, and high-lighter. I thought that there were some discussions that I could find in there to bring up for honest debate/discussion. One of them is the manner of death that Jesus faced. You could argue that Jesus was executed on a Cross, the most commonly held belief, but also on a stake or pole. I'm curious as to what you think and why. Let me lay some of…
Years ago when I was diving into learning about Christianity I spent a couple of thousand hours marking up the Bible with notes, Post-It's, and high-lighter. I thought that there were some discussions that I could find in there to bring up for honest debate/discussion. One of them is the manner of death that Jesus faced. You could argue that Jesus was executed on a Cross, the most commonly held belief, but also on a stake or pole. I'm curious as to what you think and why. Let me lay some of this out. <div><br/></div>
<div>Deuteronomy 21:22 "If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree,you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse" I then have that cross-referenced to 1 Peter 2:24 'He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree." The Old Testament prescribes execution on a tree, then it's attested to by Peter. </div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Part of the problem may come from translations. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek word for pole is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauros">stauros</a>. Right up until the 1st century BC it clearly meant a pole with no cross beam. About this time the meaning was changed. So now we are left with multiple authors whom all could have meant different things using one word and how do you reconcile it? </div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Historically it's often attested that a cross beam was used about Jesus' time. However, it's also written by Josephus that "the soldiers out of hatred and rage amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different positions" (Jewish Antiquities 5.449-51) Further, Josephus accounts for the Crucifixion of 800 Pharisee's during the Disapora but states that there were no Crucifixions in the time of Herod. (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=pbpSjsz_uY8C&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR5&amp;dq=Jewish+Antiquities+5.449-51&amp;ots=yU9R8KUDRw&amp;sig=ovL9I5Ymub1uY2l89YgIpA_WUJk#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">Source</a> pages 31 and 32 in case it doesn't display how I'd like.) So historically we are at an impasse as to which way it would have happened. Jesus death couldn't be any more in the middle of these two times.</div>
<div><br/></div>
<div>Biblically and historically you could make an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_about_Jesus'_execution_method#Second-century_references_to_Jesus.27_execution">argument</a> either way. So what say you? What arguments have you ran across that have convinced you either way? Can we hammer this one out, or is it too muddled in history? </div> Crosses Now Secular?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-03-10:1982180:Topic:527212009-03-10T14:07:43.954ZPamhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/pamelot
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFjMvVX8YIPJGarDnLExui7PcFIQD96R3TE80" target="blank">Judges weigh whether Utah crosses are secular</a><br />
<br />
DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court is weighing Utah's use of crosses on roadside memorials honoring fallen highway patrol troopers, trying to decide if they are an endorsement of religion or a nonreligious, secular symbol of death.<br />
<br />
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Monday in the case…
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFjMvVX8YIPJGarDnLExui7PcFIQD96R3TE80" target="blank">Judges weigh whether Utah crosses are secular</a><br />
<br />
DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court is weighing Utah's use of crosses on roadside memorials honoring fallen highway patrol troopers, trying to decide if they are an endorsement of religion or a nonreligious, secular symbol of death.<br />
<br />
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Monday in the case involving what the group American Atheists called "heroic-size" 12-foot-high crosses placed along state highways.<br />
<br />
Utah's 14 memorial crosses, paid for by the private Utah Highway Patrol Association, contain the highway patrol's logo and a small plaque with a photo and short biography of the fallen trooper, as well as the trooper's name, rank, badge number and year of death.<br />
<br />
A federal judge in Utah ruled in 2007 that the crosses communicate a secular message about the deaths of the troopers and are not an illegal public endorsement of religion. That judge cited the use of religious symbols in military cemeteries.<br />
<br />
Utah Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts defended the use of the privately funded crosses as a way to quickly convey a message to passing motorists that a trooper died there, and said the crosses are not an endorsement of religion.<br />
<br />
But Texas-based American Atheists argued that the crosses are symbols that convey a government endorsement of religion and shouldn't be on public land.<br />
<br />
American Atheists' attorney Brian Barnard argued that without any context, the crosses could indicate that the trooper who died was a Christian.<br />
<br />
"Here these crosses stand alone," Barnard told the judges. "There isn't anything else nearby that says they're not religious in nature."<br />
<br />
Luke Goodrich, an attorney with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued on behalf of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas, which asked to argue because the case could affect memorials in their states. Goodrich asked the judges to decide the case not on the religiousness of crosses, but on whether the state provides a neutral forum for expression.<br />
<br />
A joint resolution by the Utah Legislature in 2006 declared the cross a nonreligious, secular symbol of death, Roberts said.<br />
<br />
Appeals Court Judge David M. Ebel told Roberts that Utah's declaration doesn't necessarily make it so. "Declaring something a purse doesn't make it a purse," Ebel said.<br />
<br />
Judge Harris Hartz later asked Roberts: "Give me an example that it's a secular symbol of death. Show me a non-Christian that uses a cross to symbolize death."<br />
<br />
The judges also expressed concern that Utah officials would not allow a similarly sized religious symbol, a Star of David symbolizing the Jewish faith, for example, if a trooper's family requested one.<br />
<br />
"If it was a Jewish or a Muslim trooper, that person wouldn't get it. That's where I have a problem," Ebel said.<br />
<br />
The judges did not say when they would rule.<br />
<br />
<hr/>
Anyone else following this? It seems crazy to me. I suppose the whole idea that Jesus died on the cross is now completely irrelevant to Christians, which kind of makes Jesus himself completely irrelevant.<br />
<br />
I don't think atheists should stand alone in this battle.